People v. Boatman CA3

Filed 8/27/14 P. v. Boatman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C074598

v. (Super. Ct. No. SF124526A)

JOSEPH JUSTIN BOATMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joseph Justin Boatman asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment. On June 26, 2013, defendant drove up to the drive-in window of a closed McDonald’s, entered through the window, took money from the restaurant, and went back through the window into his car, where he gave the money to an accomplice. Defendant pled guilty to second degree burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The trial court sentenced defendant to serve a stipulated term of three years in state prison,

1

imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 16 days of presentence credit (8 actual and 8 conduct). Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HOCH , J.

We concur: